Our license plates say "Taxation without Representation." We pay federal taxes, can serve in the military, and are US citizens but we have no votes in congress. Hello! It looks like this very old wrong will finally be righted with this congress and new administration.

The Congress shall have Power To… exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such Dis­trict (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Con­gress, become the Seat of the Gov­ernment of the United States… (The U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17)

Did you not know where you were moving to was in the District? Were you not aware of what the Federal city was all about?

In The Federalist No. 43, James Madison explained the need for a "federal district," sub­ject to Congress's exclusive jurisdiction and sep­arate from the territory, and authority, of any single state:

The indispensable necessity of compleat authority at the seat of Government car­ries its own evidence with it. It is a power exercised by every Legislature of the Union, I might say of the world, by virtue of its general supremacy. Without it, not only the public authority might be insult­ed and its proceedings be interrupted, with impunity; but a dependence of the members of the general Government, on the State comprehending the seat of the Government for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the Government, and dissatisfactory to the other members of the confederacy.

Madison's concerns about insults to the "public authority" were not speculative. In June 1783, several hundred unpaid and angry Conti­nental soldiers had marched on Philadelphia, menacing Congress in Independence Hall itself. Pennsylvania refused all requests for assistance and, after two days, Congress adjourned. Its Members fled into New Jersey.

The incident made a lasting impression. The Framers referenced it over and again in defend­ing their provision for a "federal town," which Anti-Federalists persisted in visualizing as a sink of corruption and a potential nursery for tyrants. In fact, however, the need for a territo­ry in which the general government exercised full sovereignty, not beholden to any state, was probably inherent in the federal system itself.

Do it right ... work on a legal and proper Amendment to the Constitution._________________"The White House isn't the place to learn how to deal with international crisis, the balance of power, war and peace, the economic future of the next generation." --- Joe Biden, 1988

Did you not know where you were moving to was in the District? Were you not aware of what the Federal city was all about?

Uh, yeah. Thanks for asking. How about my voting age daughter who was born in the District? Different for her?

There is no logic in leaping to the erroneous conclusion that "choosing" to live in the District means giving up the right to advocate and/or actively work to change what is wrong -- like the founders did._________________Diana

Did you not know where you were moving to was in the District? Were you not aware of what the Federal city was all about?

Uh, yeah. Thanks for asking. How about my voting age daughter who was born in the District? Different for her?

There is no logic in leaping to the erroneous conclusion that "choosing" to live in the District means giving up the right to advocate and/or actively work to change what is wrong -- like the founders did.

Of course it does. Moving next to an airport -- and then complaining about the noise is much the same thing. The whole point of the District was to be a location that wasn't aligned with any state, group, whatever. Your daughter is of voting age? I presume, therefore, she is of an age to move to a location that suits her desires better, as do you.

And, the District has the entire United States Congress as representatives -- and they'll do as bang up job for you as they are for the rest of us out here._________________"The White House isn't the place to learn how to deal with international crisis, the balance of power, war and peace, the economic future of the next generation." --- Joe Biden, 1988

The Congress shall have Power To… exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such Dis­trict (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Con­gress, become the Seat of the Gov­ernment of the United States… (The U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17)

Did you not know where you were moving to was in the District? Were you not aware of what the Federal city was all about?

In The Federalist No. 43, James Madison explained the need for a "federal district," sub­ject to Congress's exclusive jurisdiction and sep­arate from the territory, and authority, of any single state:

The indispensable necessity of compleat authority at the seat of Government car­ries its own evidence with it. It is a power exercised by every Legislature of the Union, I might say of the world, by virtue of its general supremacy. Without it, not only the public authority might be insult­ed and its proceedings be interrupted, with impunity; but a dependence of the members of the general Government, on the State comprehending the seat of the Government for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the Government, and dissatisfactory to the other members of the confederacy.

Madison's concerns about insults to the "public authority" were not speculative. In June 1783, several hundred unpaid and angry Conti­nental soldiers had marched on Philadelphia, menacing Congress in Independence Hall itself. Pennsylvania refused all requests for assistance and, after two days, Congress adjourned. Its Members fled into New Jersey.

The incident made a lasting impression. The Framers referenced it over and again in defend­ing their provision for a "federal town," which Anti-Federalists persisted in visualizing as a sink of corruption and a potential nursery for tyrants. In fact, however, the need for a territo­ry in which the general government exercised full sovereignty, not beholden to any state, was probably inherent in the federal system itself.

Do it right ... work on a legal and proper Amendment to the Constitution.

Granting a voting representative for the residents of the District would not make them "beholden to any state", if anything, it would give them less dependent on the other states. Not to mention that originally they were not allowed to vote for president either, and somehow they were given that right without the Constitution falling apart. Personally, I'd rather just be exempted from federal taxes.

Senate Passes D.C. Voting Rights Act
Updated: Feb. 26, 4:51 P.M.
The Senate passed the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act on Thursday, 61-37, marking the first time in 30 years the chamber has passed a measure to give the city representation in Congress.

Granting a voting representative for the residents of the District would not make them "beholden to any state", if anything, it would give them less dependent on the other states. Not to mention that originally they were not allowed to vote for president either, and somehow they were given that right without the Constitution falling apart. Personally, I'd rather just be exempted from federal taxes.

First of all, people do not really even get to vote for president as there are only a few states that actually tie electoral votes to popular vote - I will not even entertain debate on the Electoral College because the can of worms is too big - so, giving D.C. that vote does not really matter. Also, nothing in the Constitution explicitly prohibits that vote, only the voting seat in Congress. If you just bypass the Constitution for political expediency, you just open the door for that course of action to be taken further. I would bet a year's college tuition that all of you complaining about not voting in D.C. were exceedinngly upset with the provisions of the Patriot Act that subverted the Constitution by executive order. Giving D.C. the right to vote in Congress without a Constitutional Amendment is the same type of expediency.

BTW: Can anyone tell me if D.C. has an electoral vote? I should probably know that but I don't._________________"I do not want people to be very agreeable, as it saves me the trouble of liking them a great deal." - Jane Austen
"The person, be it gentleman or lady, who has not pleasure in a good novel, must be intolerably stupid." - Jane Austen

Granting a voting representative for the residents of the District would not make them "beholden to any state", if anything, it would give them less dependent on the other states. Not to mention that originally they were not allowed to vote for president either, and somehow they were given that right without the Constitution falling apart. Personally, I'd rather just be exempted from federal taxes.

First of all, people do not really even get to vote for president as there are only a few states that actually tie electoral votes to popular vote - I will not even entertain debate on the Electoral College because the can of worms is too big - so, giving D.C. that vote does not really matter. Also, nothing in the Constitution explicitly prohibits that vote, only the voting seat in Congress. If you just bypass the Constitution for political expediency, you just open the door for that course of action to be taken further. I would bet a year's college tuition that all of you complaining about not voting in D.C. were exceedinngly upset with the provisions of the Patriot Act that subverted the Constitution by executive order. Giving D.C. the right to vote in Congress without a Constitutional Amendment is the same type of expediency.

BTW: Can anyone tell me if D.C. has an electoral vote? I should probably know that but I don't.

Yes, we vote for President so we have electoral votes. I believe we have three, as much as the smallest state in terms of population.

Quote:

I would bet a year's college tuition that all of you complaining about not voting in D.C. were exceedinngly upset with the provisions of the Patriot Act that subverted the Constitution by executive order.

Are you suggesting all of us were or weren't upset by this?

By the way, what Congress "gives" to we District citizens, they take away. Ensign, senator from Nevada, attached an amendment to the D.C. voting rights bill stripping D.C. officials of their authority to regulate guns, effectively stripping all of our gun laws (because that has so much to do with giving District citizens one vote in Congress).

Ensign. Someone, I guarantee, who does not have the best interest of District citizens at heart, since this was a backdoor attempt to keep the bill from passing by saddling it with an amendment none of us would ever support, and someone the vast majority of District residents would never, never vote for. He may very well represent the wishes of Nevada but he sure doesn't represent D.C.'s and this I find offensive. This dilly-dallying in the District's affairs. Often regarding issues we've voted for and paid for with local money, like they did with the needle exchange program.

I love how they talk a big game of the rights of citizens to manage their own affairs, keeping the federal government out of it, but they are constantly in our business. Constantly. Even in our school affairs. And, mostly, they are using us as a soap box to appeal to their base and to their rabid supporters at home to raise campaign funds. Ensign's aiming to be the next NRA poster child so this is how he's solidfying his bona fides, by meddling in D.C.'s affairs to score points elsewhere. I swear, Congress should just carve out 535 gerrymandered plots within D.C. and run their own little fiefdoms from each. District residents, be damned!

I'm going to make sure to send money to his opponent in his next election.

By the way, what Congress "gives" to we District citizens, they take away. Ensign, senator from Nevada, attached an amendment to the D.C. voting rights bill stripping D.C. officials of their authority to regulate guns, effectively stripping all of our gun laws (because that has so much to do with giving District citizens one vote in Congress).

Don't feel like the Lone Ranger. Too much is "tacked onto" bills that too many times need to be passed in a timely fashion that is garbage. But, as far as a gun control ordinance -- since you're willing to ignore the Constitution in one aspect, why not another? Or, perhaps Ensign thinks since DC residents don't seem to show much in the way of good sense when electing officials, like, oh, Mayor, maybe they shouldn't be allowed to handle other adult items, either._________________"The White House isn't the place to learn how to deal with international crisis, the balance of power, war and peace, the economic future of the next generation." --- Joe Biden, 1988